this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
487 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

12561 readers
232 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, they are technically fish. Just like we and all other tetrapods are

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's basically impossible to have a complete phylogenetic tree of bacteria and how they relate to eachother vs how they relate to common ancestors with the original eukaryotes let alone multicellular complex life. Prokaryotes as far as I know are seen as being a completely different branch more related to eachother than any eukaryotes so no, not really. Fish are a much more problematic group to exclude tetrapods from because bony fish like trouts, tuna etc are significantly more closely related to the tetrapods than either are to sharks and the other cartilagenous fish, all of which are more closely related to eachother than to the jawless fish like hagfish and lampreys.

Tldr, if both trout and sharks are fish then monophyletically people also fall under the category of "jawed fish"